I could pull tons of of tens of millions of users communally share responses, images, and videos using just a few words, but the technology is not all rose petals — it also has a few legal issues.
Scarlett Johansson recently hired legal counsel after ChatGPT maker OpenAI used a voice she called “eerily similar” to her own in its latest AI chatbot. Johansson said she turned down the company’s offer to make use of her voice for the same chatbot greater than a yr before launch and stated she was “shocked, angry and in disbelief” when she heard OpenAI’s public demo.
After Johansson’s legal advisor sent letters to OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, Business he silenced his voice “out of respect for Ms. Johansson.”
But does Johansson have a case? Neil Elanindustrial dispute lawyer, currently senior legal advisor at the law firm law firm – said Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP based in Los Angeles Entrepreneur that it can depend on several aspects, including how similar the voice is and whether there has been any potential authorization, even if it was only implied.
“It appears there was no authorization, but there could potentially be a case of presumed authorization,” Elan said.
Elan, whose specialization includes copyright, trademark and promoting matters, notes that we are unaware of the mutual communication between the parties.
“At the end of the day, it comes down to how similar the work is and what process went into it,” Elan said of mental property issues related to AI.
“If I can’t plagiarize a famous speech and take credit for it, neither can artificial intelligence,” he said.
The way OpenAI created the AI voice may additionally help determine whether there is a legal case.
OpenAI has already done this he stated that he used the voice of one other skilled voice actress, not Johansson – but that will not matter.
“Even if another person’s voice is used, the result will be a voice similar to Scarlett Johansson’s,” Elan said. “Why does this sound so similar?”
Johansson’s push against OpenAI is not the first legal motion taken against the company. The authors, including Paul Tremblay and Sarah Silverman, claim that their books were a part of datasets used to coach artificial intelligence without their consent.
New York Times defendant OpenAI in December over copyright infringement and other news organizations comparable to The Intercept followed suit.
Last month, greater than 200 musicians signed a letter calling out the “predatory” and “disastrous” use of AI in the music industry. More than 15,000 contributors signed the declaration last yr asked AI CEOs at OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Meta and IBM to acknowledge and compensate authors before training AI in their work.
The query of where large AI firms get their training data has also come to the forefront of AI discussions, with an April report revealing that cutting-edge text-to-video AI models may very well be trained on YouTube videos without the creators’ knowledge. This.
Does this mean that unknown creators are out of luck when it involves unauthorized use of their voice or likeness? Not really, but a non-celebrity’s industrial image or voice doesn’t have the same value as that of a public figure, Elan says.
While firms and enterprises cannot use someone’s voice without consent, there would likely not be a strong case for monetary compensation in the event of unauthorized use.
“A monetary reward may not justify a case like this,” Elan said, adding that folks still “have the right to protect their image.”